Thanks for the article. It is an interesting thesis (one that is likely accurate) but I really don't believe the data, or at least the way it is presented, supports the thesis. The biggest problem by far is that there are less than 1000 "transactions." That might be enough to make some broad determinations, but once you start slicing the data to make comparisons the numbers are less meaningful. I also wonder about the decision to exclude the HBCUs. While I somewhat understand the rationale, I wonder whether the decision was made before or after the data was compiled.

The study includes charts which break down the data by conference. That means the study is trying to infer information from perhaps 30 transactions, broken down between Caucasians and Minorities (assume a breakdown of 24 and 6). The Big 10 is singled out for firing more Minorities and hiring more Caucasians. I assume that means they used to have more Minority head coaches, because otherwise you run out of Minorities to fire. But given the small sample size if CVS had retired the numbers would actually be quite different.

I believe that there are some biases against Minority head coaches in Men's and Women's basketball. I also believe the reasons for those biases are not all the same. And to be clear, I say this almost entirely from a sociological standpoint, unsupported by data. I believe some of the reasons may even have some relationship to potential success, but primarily they have much more to do with entrenched power and staying within cultural norms.

Studies like this are important. Hopefully there are more findings beyond this report and they will continue to collect data.

I might run something similar for the WNBA. It doesn't seem particularly minority friendly, considering that a quarter of the current teams have never had a black head coach (including one of the original franchises).

_________________Increased means and increased leisure are the two civilizers of man

I would be the first to agree that more minority hires should be a goal. However, I don't believe that those numbers show an "institutionalized discrimination." First and foremost, institutions want to hire the person who they believe is most likely to succeed and produce wins. There are so many variables at play when deciding when to replace a coach that drawing conclusions from numbers alone can paint an incomplete picture. The numbers are interesting and I appreciate the post.

I might run something similar for the WNBA. It doesn't seem particularly minority friendly, considering that a quarter of the current teams have never had a black head coach (including one of the original franchises).

I suggest you keep the data simpler than the referenced report. Any point you want to make would likely be clearest by just showing the number of coaches (M/F, M/W) by team with average length of service. Showing the percentage of women and minority coaches by year throughout the history of the league would also offer insight.

I might run something similar for the WNBA. It doesn't seem particularly minority friendly, considering that a quarter of the current teams have never had a black head coach (including one of the original franchises).

I suggest you keep the data simpler than the referenced report. Any point you want to make would likely be clearest by just showing the number of coaches (M/F, M/W) by team with average length of service. Showing the percentage of women and minority coaches by year throughout the history of the league would also offer insight.

I ran into one problem right away. WNBA head coaches rarely leave for other jobs. Unlike college, there's not a clearly defined hierarchy of jobs that are objectively better than others.

It's also a much smaller data set, which could lead to skewed results.

_________________Increased means and increased leisure are the two civilizers of man

I think everyone can agree womens basketball has made some bad hires based on alot of different reasons. Its a long running joke that if you are a black female someone will hire you if you cant walk and chew gum much less coach basketball just because of studies like these.

Alot of coaches were hired way to quick in their career based on such and when they are not prepared they lose. Losing equals fired and now its shows up on a graph as this.

I think everyone can agree womens basketball has made some bad hires based on alot of different reasons. Its a long running joke that if you are a black female someone will hire you if you cant walk and chew gum much less coach basketball just because of studies like these.

Alot of coaches were hired way to quick in their career based on such and when they are not prepared they lose. Losing equals fired and now its shows up on a graph as this.

Dispute all you want, but these are facts.

I think everyone can agree every industry has made some bad hires based on alot of different reasons. Its a long running joke that if you are a black female someone will hire you if you cant walk and chew gum much less coach basketball just because of studies like these, even though such "jokes" are not funny and have very little basis in reality.

Alot of coaches were hired way to(sic) quick in their career based on many different reasons and when they are not prepared they lose. Losing equals fired and now its shows up on a graph as this.

One thing that is clear is that in some schools there is very little interest shown in the success of women's basketball. In those instances installing any coach will probably not lead to sucess. Coaches may be installed for other reasons beside the likelihood of success on the court and in those cases that success is less likely. Also in those cases coaches who are more adept at internal athletic office politics may be better able to maintain positions within a generally white hierarchy.

I think everyone can agree womens basketball has made some bad hires based on alot of different reasons. Its a long running joke that if you are a black female someone will hire you if you cant walk and chew gum much less coach basketball just because of studies like these.

Alot of coaches were hired way to quick in their career based on such and when they are not prepared they lose. Losing equals fired and now its shows up on a graph as this.

I think everyone can agree womens basketball has made some bad hires based on alot of different reasons. Its a long running joke that if you are a black female someone will hire you if you cant walk and chew gum much less coach basketball just because of studies like these.

Alot of coaches were hired way to quick in their career based on such and when they are not prepared they lose. Losing equals fired and now its shows up on a graph as this.

Dispute all you want, but these are facts.

Yeah, white guys like Dennis Wolff and Jimmy Dykes never get hired despite having no demonstrated ability to coach WCBB. White guys like Tyler Summitt never get hired before they're ready.

One of the flaws of the study is that they don't control for some of those things, like experience.

_________________Increased means and increased leisure are the two civilizers of man

I think everyone can agree womens basketball has made some bad hires based on alot of different reasons. Its a long running joke that if you are a black female someone will hire you if you cant walk and chew gum much less coach basketball just because of studies like these.

Alot of coaches were hired way to quick in their career based on such and when they are not prepared they lose. Losing equals fired and now its shows up on a graph as this.

Dispute all you want, but these are facts.

Yeah, white guys like Dennis Wolff and Jimmy Dykes never get hired despite having no demonstrated ability to coach WCBB. White guys like Tyler Summitt never get hired before they're ready.

One of the flaws of the study is that they don't control for some of those things, like experience.

You named three. I can name many many many many more. Not going to, cause everyone knows what I speak is truth to those who can see and comprehend truth. A dying breed though.

By the way, Dennis and Jimmy sucked too. Tyler just had some raging hormones. Everyone makes mistakes, I would bet you even have made a few.

One last thing, I just am saying on this board what everyone says privately.

I think everyone can agree womens basketball has made some bad hires based on alot of different reasons. Its a long running joke that if you are a black female someone will hire you if you cant walk and chew gum much less coach basketball just because of studies like these.

Alot of coaches were hired way to quick in their career based on such and when they are not prepared they lose. Losing equals fired and now its shows up on a graph as this.

Dispute all you want, but these are facts.

Yeah, white guys like Dennis Wolff and Jimmy Dykes never get hired despite having no demonstrated ability to coach WCBB. White guys like Tyler Summitt never get hired before they're ready.

One of the flaws of the study is that they don't control for some of those things, like experience.

You named three. I can name many many many many more. Not going to, cause everyone knows what I speak is truth to those who can see and comprehend truth. A dying breed though.

By the way, Dennis and Jimmy sucked too. Tyler just had some raging hormones. Everyone makes mistakes, I would bet you even have made a few.

One last thing, I just am saying on this board what everyone says privately.

I can name a bunch more too. The good ol' boys network extends into WCBB just like it does everywhere.

_________________Increased means and increased leisure are the two civilizers of man

I think everyone can agree womens basketball has made some bad hires based on alot of different reasons. Its a long running joke that if you are a black female someone will hire you if you cant walk and chew gum much less coach basketball just because of studies like these.

Alot of coaches were hired way to quick in their career based on such and when they are not prepared they lose. Losing equals fired and now its shows up on a graph as this.

Dispute all you want, but these are facts.

Yeah, white guys like Dennis Wolff and Jimmy Dykes never get hired despite having no demonstrated ability to coach WCBB. White guys like Tyler Summitt never get hired before they're ready.

One of the flaws of the study is that they don't control for some of those things, like experience.

There have been plenty of coaches with many years of experience as assistant coaches who were disasters as head coaches (Tia Jackson, LaVonda Wagner, etc.).

But I think Pilight's point is that it is really rare for a black female to be hired with the lack of experience of Wolff/Dykes/Summitt. Only Swoopes comes to mind, though she had a much better resume as a player at the professional level (and college career) than any of the three men mentioned.
But outside of Swoopes, who else was given the same chance without the experience as Wolff/Dykes/Summitt?

Wolff and Dykes were hired at Power 5 schools despite never having coached women's basketball in any capacity at any level. When has that ever happened with a black woman? Or anyone who wasn't a white man?

Quote:

I just am saying on this board what everyone says privately

Me too. It pays to be a white male.

_________________Increased means and increased leisure are the two civilizers of man

Wolff and Dykes were hired at Power 5 schools despite never having coached women's basketball in any capacity at any level. When has that ever happened with a black woman? Or anyone who wasn't a white man?

Quote:

I just am saying on this board what everyone says privately

Me too. It pays to be a white male.

I am not familiar with either, so could you tell me if they had experience coaching mens teams? And if so why doesn't that count? My perspective on WCBB is that early on, too much emphasis was placed on the sex of the coach rather than the coaches abilities. Using any program for social engineering purposes is sure to have down the road negative consequences. Womens basketball is rapidly catching up to the level of the Mens game. The same applies to coaching. It just makes sense that because of the longer history and the greater numbers of Men involved in the sport, that there would be a greater pool to draw from in respect to men coaches as opposed to women.

Wolff and Dykes were hired at Power 5 schools despite never having coached women's basketball in any capacity at any level. When has that ever happened with a black woman? Or anyone who wasn't a white man?

I mentioned this in my post, but the only one of which I could think was Sheryl Swoopes - who had one year of coaching experience, for a high school women's basketball team - when she was hired as the head coach of Loyola.

But Swoopes also had a much, much, much more distinguished playing career than Wolff, Dykes, or Summitt.

Wolff at least had several years of coaching experience, both as a head coach (17 years as a men's college head coach) and an assistant (13 years as a men's college assistant). It might not be in the women's game, but he had a LOT of coaching experience.

Dykes had 6 years as a men's assistant college coach, but not since 1990. He had one year as an NBA assistant and two years as an NBA scout, but that ended in 1993.

Summitt had two years as an experience (after two years at Tennessee as a player on the men's team) before being hired to coach LA Tech.

Swoopes had much less coaching experience than all of them, but she also was not hired to take over a P5 program or a program with a rich WBB history outside of the P5 conferences.

But outside of Sheryl Swoopes, I cannot think of any female coach who was given the reins to a head coaching position in WCBB without any relevant experience or even the resumes of men's coaches who had never coached in the women's game.

ETA...there are MANY men's players who are hired as assistant coaches or even head coaches right after their playing careers end (e.g., Phoenix Suns hiring Earl Watson - and firing him this year). But outside of Swoopes and Cynthia Cooper (hired to coach the Mercury right after her WNBA playing career ended for the first time), I cannot think of anyone else.

I think this highlights Pilight's point - across the board, men have been given more opportunities with either less experience or less relevant experience or less recent experience than women.

But outside of Sheryl Swoopes, I cannot think of any female coach who was given the reins to a head coaching position in WCBB without any relevant experience or even the resumes of men's coaches who had never coached in the women's game.

As far as former WNBA players go, Dawn Staley at Temple would be one obvious example. Jennifer Azzi's stint at San Francisco was her first coaching job.

Quote:

ETA...there are MANY men's players who are hired as assistant coaches or even head coaches right after their playing careers end (e.g., Phoenix Suns hiring Earl Watson - and firing him this year). But outside of Swoopes and Cynthia Cooper (hired to coach the Mercury right after her WNBA playing career ended for the first time), I cannot think of anyone else.

A ton of former WNBA players have been hired as assistants at all levels of play, some even while they're still playing.

_________________Increased means and increased leisure are the two civilizers of man

I think Rizzotti was hired as the Hartford HC without any coaching experience if memory serves correctly. Also in the northeast, Maine hired former player Cindy Blodgett with minimal assistant experience. Her few years as an asst were all pretty bad too if I recall and her head coaching time was not good at all.

Those are a couple of other women that were given chances pretty quickly.

I think something to keep in mind is that the sport of women's basketball is still pretty young, especially at the current level of competition. And there certainly weren't a great deal of women coaching at that time. Things like this take time to evolve but it's definitely a much more even playing field today than it was even just 10 years ago IMO.

One other note: There isn't a lot of money to be made in women's coaching, despite the big salaries we see for the top schools. The assistants don't make that much, it's a tough life, and there are easier ways to make a living.